Millus v. Milford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Millus v. Milford

289 A.D.2d 543, 735 N.Y.S.2d 202, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13064

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 31, 2001·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated June 19, 2001, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of their motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs submitted the examination before trial of the defendant Joseph N. Milford, wherein he stated that a school bus driven by the plaintiff Alande Millus hit the side of his vehicle while Milford was attempting to execute a right turn onto Christopher Street from the extreme left lane of Seventh Avenue South. Although it appears that Milford violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1160 (a), the plaintiff driver failed to estab[544] lish as a matter of law his freedom from comparative negligence (see, King v Washburn, 273 AD2d 725).

Accordingly, summary judgment was properly denied. Ritter, J. P., Goldstein, Friedmann, Feuerstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated June 19, 2001, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of their motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs submitted the examination before trial of the defendant Joseph N. Milford, wherein he stated that a school bus driven by the plaintiff Alande Millus hit the side of his vehicle while Milford was attempting to execute a right turn onto Christopher Street from the extreme left lane of Seventh Avenue South. Although it appears that Milford violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1160 (a), the plaintiff driver failed to estab[544] lish as a matter of law his freedom from comparative negligence (see, King v Washburn, 273 AD2d 725).

Accordingly, summary judgment was properly denied. Ritter, J. P., Goldstein, Friedmann, Feuerstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

Millus v. Milford, 289 A.D.2d 543, 735 N.Y.S.2d 202, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13064 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

289 A.D.2d 543 (Millus v. Milford) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related